ORDER : Heard Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.K.Mehta learned counsel for the Ranchi University and Mr. Saket Khanna appearing on behalf of A.C. to G.A.-II. 2. Since in these two writ petitions the common question is involved and that is why both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of with the consent of the parties at the admission stage itself. 3. The petitioners have preferred this writ petitioner for quashing of the order dated 10.12.2011 whereby the remuneration of the petitioners have been reduced to Rs. 3,500/- and for direction to the University to regularise the services of the petitioners. 4. Mr. Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that pursuant to a notification dated 12.01.1987, Ranchi University has issued Introduction of Degree and Post Degree Graduate Course of Journalism on the basis of “No loss and No profit basis” till the formal approval and necessary sanction is received from the University Grant Commission. The Journalism Course was approved by notification dated 07.07.1987. As the petitioners were fulfilling the criteria of applying for the post of Assistant in Journalism and Mass Communication Department in Ranchi University, they applied and after interview they have declared successful and recommendation for appointment was made by letter dated 13.10.2000. Pursuant to that appointment letter the petitioners have joined in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication on 01.11.2000 in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-50-2750/- and since then petitioners were working on that post. He further submits that the then Registrar, Ranchi University wrote a letter to the Education Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna for sanction of post for the department of Journalism in Ranchi University vide letter dated 03.01.1989. 5. Mr. Singh appearing for the petitioners submits that by letter dated 21.01.2004 contained in Annexure-9, recommendation was made by the competent authority for regularisation of the services of the petitioner. He further submits that inspite of the recommendation for regularisation the University has not taken any positive steps and in contrary to that issued the letter dated 10.12.2011 whereby the pay of the petitioner has been reduced to Rs. 3,500/-. Aggrieved with this action, these petitioners have preferred this writ application. 6. Mr. He further submits that inspite of the recommendation for regularisation the University has not taken any positive steps and in contrary to that issued the letter dated 10.12.2011 whereby the pay of the petitioner has been reduced to Rs. 3,500/-. Aggrieved with this action, these petitioners have preferred this writ application. 6. Mr. Singh appearing for the petitioners submits that the Journalism Department is being run by Ranchi University and the Ranchi University is the competent authority to take a decision with regard to services of the petitioners. He further submits that the remuneration has been reduced to Rs.3500/- without providing any show cause notice to the petitioners which is against the Principles of Natural Justice. He submits that in paragraph nos. 29 and 30 the petitioners have stated that the said Journalism Department is running in profit and inspite of that remuneration of the petitioners have been reduced. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Mehta appearing on behalf of the Ranchi University submits that the petitioners are not the employees of Ranchi University, the Journalism and Mass Communication Department of the university is being run on the basis of fund which are being collected from the students and from the funds the petitioners are being paid their salary. Mr. Mehta drawn attention to page 69 of the writ petition and submits that the university has already taken a steps by way of request to the State Government to sanction the post so that the services of the petitioners be regularised, but the State Government has not sanctioned the post and the request of the Ranchi University has been negated by letter dated 26.03.2013. Mr. Mehta also submits that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis. He further submits that the remuneration of the petitioners vary from year to year and sometime it is on the higher side, and sometime it is on the lower side. 8. When this matter was heard on the last time seeing the submission of Mr. Mehta, this Court issued notice to respondent no. 7, the notice has already been effected upon the respondent no.7 but there is no response on behalf of the respondent no. 7. 9. Mr. Mehta further submits that the submission of the petitioners are not correct that the petitioners were appointed in the pay scale of Rs. Mehta, this Court issued notice to respondent no. 7, the notice has already been effected upon the respondent no.7 but there is no response on behalf of the respondent no. 7. 9. Mr. Mehta further submits that the submission of the petitioners are not correct that the petitioners were appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- and submits that the remuneration of the petitioners were fixed at Rs, 13500/- per month. In view of Annexure-19 which has been reduced to Rs. 3,500/- per month by the respondent no. 7. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the basis of page 69 to 70 of the writ petition submits that the State has not sanctioned the posts as requested by the Ranchi University. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the letter dated 10.12.2011 has been issued whereby the remuneration of the petitioners have been reduced to Rs.3,500/- from 13,500/- and before issuing the said letter no notice to the petitioners have been provided which is against the principle of natural justice. As in view of the submission of the counsel of the Ranchi University that the said Mass Communication Department is being run on the basis of the funds collected by the students and inspite of notice of this Court the respondent no. 7 has not come forwarded with any affidavit. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.12.2011 is quashed. The petitioners are directed to file a fresh representation before the respondent no. 7 within four weeks from today and the respondent no. 7 will take a final call on the representation of the petitioners and will pass a speaking order in this regard within four weeks, thereafter. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ applications are allowed and disposed of.